# Most overrated or underated type?



## Dar (Nov 27, 2011)

Pretty self-explanitory.

Personally, I think Dragon types are VERY overrated. They may be powerful, but for one thing, the only thing they're strong against is other Dragon types. Secondly, they're most commonly Dragon/Flying types, which only doubles the damage against it's main weakness: Ice. And the most underrated type is Bug. Sure there are some bad ones (Metapod, Kriketot, etc.), but there are good ones too. Some of these are Heracross, Escavelier, and Crustle.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Luxcario (Nov 27, 2011)

I agree with Dragon being terribly overrated. I also think Ground is pretty overrated.
Electric and Bug are both kinda underrated.


----------



## Zexion (Nov 27, 2011)

Y'all dis the Dragon's too much, it's not their fault. Blame Nintendo for their power. They are a bit overrated, yes, but not the most. The most overrated in my opinon would have to be the Steel type. The most underrated, I agree to the fullest extinet, the Bugs. My favorite bug is a tad bit overrated many people have told me. That would be Nincada.


----------



## Cerberus87 (Nov 27, 2011)

Dragons aren't overrated, they're regarded among the strongest because most if not all of them are very powerful. Salamence and Garchomp were banned in Gen IV for example.

Steel is the best defensive type, they're not overrated.

I think Psychic is an overrated type nowadays. They used to be the best type in RBY but since Gen II and the continued castration of Alakazam they haven't been very intimidating.

Grass is underrated. Poor attacking type with many common weaknesses, but usually has Pokémon with lots of status-inducing moves which may turn the tide in battle.


----------



## sv_01 (Nov 28, 2011)

Well, Dragon and Fire are both overrated.

As for underrated, why does everyone hate Grass-types? I think there is a meme about nobody choosing the Grass starter.


----------



## Dar (Nov 28, 2011)

Cerberus said:


> Grass is underrated. Poor attacking type with many common weaknesses, but usually has Pokémon with lots of status-inducing moves which may turn the tide in battle.


I have to agree with this. There actually a few good grass-type attackers, but all of them have good status moves, as you said. (I mean, who doesnt love Breloom?)


----------



## M&F (Nov 28, 2011)

"Overrated" and "underrated" aren't very meaningful words when you're dealing with general, uncoordinated opinion.

Anyways. Dragon-type is only resisted by a single type; couple that with powerful volleys like Outrage or strong STAB attackers like Salamence and you're nigh unstoppable. This is also one of the reasons why Steel-type is popular -- it's the only type that can reliably wall against Dragon-type attacks. Thus, I don't think it's very fair to consider the Dragon-type overrated.

Also, fire is popular mostly because it tends to be the specific weak point of some threats that are so for their ability to resist most common threats. In Gen III, it was common to slap Fire Blast in physical attackers in order to counter Skarmory; it furthermore became essential when Scizor exploded with popularity from learning Bullet Punch in Platinum, as it's doubly weak to Fire but weak to nothing else.


----------



## CJBlazer (Nov 28, 2011)

I think the most underrated type are Normal Types. They seem weak, but aren't mainly all the powerful moves (such as Hyper-0beam and Self Destruct) Normal moves. Still, Dragons are overrated because they seem so powerful. The only weaknessesd they have are Ice and Dragon.


----------



## I liek Squirtles (Nov 28, 2011)

Dragons are powerful exactly because of _that_, CJ. Usually, they are strong and rare.(i.e. Gible only available by going through the _secret_ exit in that cave). Only two weaknesses and one resistance is awesome. And in RBY, there was no Steel type, so Dragon was seemingly impossible to defeat unless you had an Ice move. Underrated? I think Bug is overrated for underrated. :p I'd say Dark.


----------



## M&F (Nov 28, 2011)

I liek Squirtles said:


> Dragons are powerful exactly because of _that_, CJ. Usually, they are strong and rare.(i.e. Gible only available by going through the _secret_ exit in that cave). Only two weaknesses and one resistance is awesome. And in RBY, there was no Steel type, so Dragon was seemingly impossible to defeat unless you had an Ice move. Underrated? I think Bug is overrated for underrated. :p I'd say Dark.


Two weaknesses, one of them being to yourself, is pretty good; only one resistance, on the other hand, would be pretty bad. Fortunately, Dragon-type actually has four or so resistances, three of them being important volleys. Also, in RBY, the only Dragon-type move was Dragon Rage, which does fixed damage; as such, it only had any meaning as a defensive type.

Dark is pretty well rated, specially when accounting for the lack of strong moves (the strongest yet is Foul Play iirc, and that was only introduced recently, not to mention it can still fall behind Sucker Punch and Dark Pulse depending on who you're hitting). Immunity to Psychic, ability to hit Ghosts for SE and several moves (most notably Pursuit and Taunt) make the Dark-type well present.


----------



## Elaine (Nov 29, 2011)

[QUOTE="Metallica Fanboy]"Overrated" and "underrated" aren't very meaningful words when you're dealing with general, uncoordinated opinion.[/QUOTE]

Agreeing w/this. The only type that screams "underrated" to me would have to be Poison. Sure, a supereffective hit on only one type blows, but that doesn't neccessarily mean it it horrible. When combined w/the appropiate secondary type such as Dark, which only merits one weakness when combined, can cause some havoc. 

Tentacruel is pretty awesome. Good Special Defense, okay movepool, awesome abilities, who's to say you don't see Tentacruel's on PO? Toxic Spikes abuse is awesome. Which brings me to another point, only Poison and Steel-types can absorb Toxic Spikes. 



> Dark is pretty well rated, specially when accounting for the lack of strong moves (the strongest yet is Foul Play iirc, and that was only introduced recently, not to mention it can still fall behind Sucker Punch and Dark Pulse depending on who you're hitting). Immunity to Psychic, ability to hit Ghosts for SE and several moves (most notably Pursuit and Taunt) make the Dark-type well present.


Dark is okay. Fighting-types murder it. And w/bug types becoming more prevelant, it spells doom for our poor Dark-types. I really despise the fact that Dark Pulse is not a TM anymore, losing a nice special Dark-type move sucks.


----------



## M&F (Nov 29, 2011)

Elaine said:


> Agreeing w/this. The only type that screams "underrated" to me would have to be Poison. Sure, a supereffective hit on only one type blows, but that doesn't neccessarily mean it it horrible. When combined w/the appropiate secondary type such as Dark, which only merits one weakness when combined, can cause some havoc.
> 
> Tentacruel is pretty awesome. Good Special Defense, okay movepool, awesome abilities, who's to say you don't see Tentacruel's on PO? Toxic Spikes abuse is awesome. Which brings me to another point, only Poison and Steel-types can absorb Toxic Spikes.


Offensively, Poison is terrible indeed; not only do they only have one super-effectiveness, and that being against a type which has several other more common weaknesses and is hardly well-used, but also there's a wide pool of Poison resistance, including even immunity from the ubiquitous Steel-types. Defensively, it's also not particularly impressive, being exposed to Ground-types, which is always bad, and also, on a lesser level of problem, Psychic. It happens to bode well with Water and perhaps another type that would enjoy negating a weakness to Fighting (and would not mind picking up one to Ground), but otherwise, it doesn't have much to its name. Even the resistance to Toxic Spikes is already present among Steel-types, Flying-types and Levitate Pokémon, which are all more common.



Elaine said:


> Dark is okay. Fighting-types murder it. And w/bug types becoming more prevelant, it spells doom for our poor Dark-types. I really despise the fact that Dark Pulse is not a TM anymore, losing a nice special Dark-type move sucks.


On the other hand, though, we have some Dark-types introduced recently that kick plenty of ass. Zoroark and Hydreigon would have to be the best examples (unless Scrafty and Krookodile happen to be good metagame and I didn't know because I haven't been keeping up with that at all).


----------



## sv_01 (Nov 29, 2011)

CJBlazer said:


> I think the most underrated type are Normal Types. They seem weak, but aren't mainly all the powerful moves (such as Hyper-0beam and Self Destruct) Normal moves.


That's just it, Hyper Beam and Selfdestruct. I prefer moves that have about 20 PP and a good secondary effect. Or at least no bad secondary effect.


----------



## Cerberus87 (Nov 29, 2011)

Poison's not bad. Being immune to poison status is a very nice plus. It does hit super-effectively against only one type, but it hits for neutral against a lot of types.


----------



## sv_01 (Nov 30, 2011)

Cerberus said:


> Poison's not bad. Being immune to poison status is a very nice plus. It does hit super-effectively against only one type, but it hits for neutral against a lot of types.


Maybe people don't like Poison-types because most of them are ugly.


----------



## Dar (Dec 1, 2011)

sv_01 said:


> Maybe people don't like Poison-types because most of them are ugly.


I can believe this, but I honestly dont think pokemon should be judged by their looks.


----------



## Spatz (Dec 1, 2011)

Cubone said:


> I can believe this, but I honestly dont think pokemon should be judged by their looks.


Newsflash:

Alot of people do. It's kind of silly. But that's how the world works.


----------



## Karousever (Dec 1, 2011)

I don't think Dragon types are overrated. I mean, in lots of legends and myths and whatnot dragons were always the strongest creature known, and so people wanting a Dragon type makes sense...and they are pretty powerful, aren't they? I know my Dragonite hasn't ever let me down. And most of the Psuedo-legendaries are Dragon type, aren't they? (Or resembling dragons, anyway) Also, I agree Grass and Bug can be underrated. I don't often have a team with a Grass or a Bug on it, but I do recognize their usefulness and power.


----------



## sv_01 (Dec 1, 2011)

Cubone said:


> I can believe this, but I honestly dont think pokemon should be judged by their looks.


You can't expect people to be objective when deciding which Pokémon is their favorite.


----------



## Spatz (Dec 1, 2011)

I may point out that the under-ratedness of Bugs has been mitigated by the fifth generation.


----------



## M&F (Dec 1, 2011)

Poison-types are not stylically different from the rest of Pokémon; I don't see why people would dislike the type for "being ugly".

Except for Garbodor, but that's in a category of its own.


----------



## Dannichu (Dec 1, 2011)

Cubone said:


> I can believe this, but I honestly dont think pokemon should be judged by their looks.





Lirris said:


> Newsflash:
> 
> Alot of people do. It's kind of silly. But that's how the world works.


Really? I think it's sillier to judge Pokemon on their stats. It makes me sad when people boil Pokemon down to numbers and values and disregard lots of Pokemon entirely because they're not good competitive battlers. "Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favourites" and all that.

But I like Pikachu best because it's cute, so.


----------



## Cerberus87 (Dec 1, 2011)

Dannichu said:


> Really? I think it's sillier to judge Pokemon on their stats. It makes me sad when people boil Pokemon down to numbers and values and disregard lots of Pokemon entirely because they're not good competitive battlers. "Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favourites" and all that.


Amen.


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Dec 2, 2011)

Dannichu said:


> Really? I think it's sillier to judge Pokemon on their stats. It makes me sad when people boil Pokemon down to numbers and values and disregard lots of Pokemon entirely because they're not good competitive battlers. "Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favourites" and all that.
> 
> But I like Pikachu best because it's cute, so.


clearly, what _really_ matters is the movepool. obviously.


----------



## bulbasaur (Dec 2, 2011)

Dannichu said:


> Really? I think it's sillier to judge Pokemon on their stats. It makes me sad when people boil Pokemon down to numbers and values and disregard lots of Pokemon entirely because they're not good competitive battlers. "Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favourites" and all that.


Unfortunately, my favourite six range from NU to Uber.


----------



## Cerberus87 (Dec 2, 2011)

sreservoir said:


> clearly, what _really_ matters is the movepool. obviously.


Give Farfetch'd Mew's movepool and it would still suck. :(


----------



## CJBlazer (Dec 2, 2011)

Well, Farfetch wouldn't suck if he had the moves of Staravia or Pigeot.


----------



## sv_01 (Dec 2, 2011)

CJBlazer said:


> Well, Farfetch wouldn't suck if he had the moves of Staravia or Pigeot.


No False Swipe? He should have False Swipe as well.


----------



## M&F (Dec 2, 2011)

Smeargle knows _all the moves_ and it still sucks.


----------



## Cerberus87 (Dec 2, 2011)

Metallica Fanboy said:


> Smeargle knows _all the moves_ and it still sucks.


Smeargle can be used effectively in OU, although you need some luck and big balls to make it work. Can't say the same for Farfetch'd unfortunately.


----------



## Spatz (Dec 2, 2011)

Smeargle = Transform...


----------



## Shimmer Mint (Dec 2, 2011)

I think Dragon types are overrated. Most people I know think that once they have a dragon type, they can rule over all. I agree with Bug types being underrated. I also think that ground and ice types are underrated as well.


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Dec 2, 2011)

ground and ice are among the best offensive types, especially due to the large distribution of their defining moves. as a defensive typing, ice is terrible and ground is okay.

dragons get stupidly powerful moves with only small drawbacks, tend to have at least decent stats, and ridiculous neutral coverage; it's not that they're overrated, they're _just that good_.


----------



## Cerberus87 (Dec 3, 2011)

STAB Earthquake is a great asset in the metagame. Ice is good as an offensive type because it keeps dragons in check, but being Ice-type yourself isn't very good, since STAB on Ice Beam/Ice Punch isn't very necessary and Ice is probably the worst type defensively.

Dragons are very difficult to kill if you don't have an Ice-type move or a Steel-type Pokémon to wall Outrages. Salamence and Garchomp are 4x weak to Ice, but they are speedy and will beat down most Pokémon before they can launch an Ice move. Speed is what makes Cynthia's Garchomp very difficult to prepare for.


----------



## M&F (Dec 3, 2011)

Ice lacks good offensive Pokémon (aside from maybe Weavile), which means the type is most useful outside STAB. Furthermore, Ice-types tend not to learn much that counters their weaknesses.


----------



## sv_01 (Dec 3, 2011)

I liek Squirtles said:


> Underrated? ... I'd say Dark.


I thought Dark-types were mostly considered awesome mysterious ninjas and stuff.


----------

